The Supreme Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by Dr Jothydev Kesavadev seeking effective implementation and enforcement of mandatory seat belt usage, child restraint systems, and first-aid kits in vehicles. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, heard the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution after the petitioner’s representation to the Union government in February 2026 went unanswered.
The petitioner relied on Section 194B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which prescribes penalties for driving without a seat belt and for carrying passengers not wearing seat belts, and mandates that children below a prescribed age be secured through seat belts or child restraint systems. He also cited Rule 138(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, requiring the driver, front seat occupants, and applicable front-facing rear seat occupants to wear seat belts while the vehicle is in motion.
The petition highlighted that despite these legal provisions, a large number of vehicles had non-functional seat belt sockets due to seat covers, removal of receptacles, and other voluntary modifications. It further argued that citizen negligence, combined with weak enforcement by authorities, increased the risk of serious injury or death in road accidents.
After considering the submissions, the bench observed that there are adequate laws for mandatory compliance with safety measures, including seat belts, while the vehicle is in motion, and this fact is hardly disputable. However, it held that the real issue lies not in the absence of law but in enforcement.
The Court noted that non-compliance by passengers and the failure of law enforcement agencies to act against defaulters constitute a question of maintenance of law and order as well as traffic discipline. It emphasized that a judicial order reiterating the mandatory legal provisions per se would not aid in their enforcement.
Accordingly, the bench disposed of the writ petition. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to forward a copy of his petition to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for consideration of his suggestions and recommendations as part of road safety measures.
The Court made no findings on the efficacy of the petitioner’s specific proposals but affirmed that the avenue for further consideration remains open through executive channels. The matter is now closed before the Supreme Court, with the petitioner at liberty to pursue administrative remedies.
The order does not impose any binding directions on the government but permits the petitioner to engage with the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on the issues raised in his petition.
The appearance for the petitioner was led by Mr Wills Mathews, Advocate, along with Mr Ginesh P, Advocate, Ms Shivangi Ranjan, Advocate, Mr Dhanesh M Nair, Advocate, Mr Paul John Edison, Advocate, Mr Rakesh Garg, Advocate, Mr Ashish Gopal Garg, Advocate, and Ms Shweta Garg, Advocate-on-Record.